"This is consistent with our commitment that we are going to take away government funding for abortions," Cantor said. "This is consistent with where most Americans are and consistent with reducing spending."

He would support even a provision that would increase taxes on employer benefits that cover abortion. "The provision that you speak to does have some connect to government funding," he added....Ranking member Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) called the provisions in H.R. 3 a "Republican tax increase." He continued, "It's about government interfering with private health care decisions. It is not about protecting the innocent, it is about creating appalling, even life threatening situations, for women." He also raised the troubling constitutional issue of if tax exemptions are government funding, then will religious institutions still be able to receive them? From his opening statement:

"I am equally surprised to find out that my Republican colleagues think that a tax exemption or credit is a form of government funding. What happened to all the rhetoric about it being 'our money,' or does that only apply in certain circumstances? Will we now have to call every tax exemption or credit a form of government funding for the recipient? I'm sure there will be many businesses, charities, and religious denominations that will be alarmed to find out that they are receiving government subsidies. [...]

Among others that should be horrified are all the churches and synagogues and mosques that will now have to, presumably, give up their tax exemptions, because if tax exemptions are government subsidies, that's a direct establishment of religion. And the logic is inexorable. Either a tax exemption is government funding -- in which case we cannot give tax exemptions to churches and synagogues and mosques -- or it is not, in which case this bill has no claim on anyone.

mocktwinkie saidAbortion should only be covered if there is danger to the mother and possibly rape, otherwise it's just a luxury choice and not a health concern.

The "luxury" is in having children and the resources to take care of them. Following the ongoing dismantling of social services and welfare with all of these attempts to constrict abortion rights, is part and parcel of creating a permanent underclass of working poor.

Thankfully, to small "c" conservative women senators in Wyoming are speaking out against all this antiabortion legislation:

MaddowBlogTraditional conservatism showed up in Wyoming last month when a pair of Republican lawmakers, both women, spoke out against an anti-abortion bill that would have required doctors to tell women their fetuses can feel pain and to show them ultrasounds before going ahead with the procedure. "When I go to the doctor, it is the most private thing you can imagine," said State Rep. Lisa Shepperson. "I want myself, I want my husband, and I want my doctor there. And I don't want any government."

State Rep. Sue Wallis told colleagues her own story of ending a pregnancy after a brush with cancer. "[O]ur ability as free moral agents cannot justify these broad strokes," she said. She added, "I just ask you as a human being, as a friend, and as a colleague, not to pass mass judgment on your fellow human beings."

mocktwinkie saidAbortion should only be covered if there is danger to the mother and possibly rape, otherwise it's just a luxury choice and not a health concern.

Mock, we're men so it's none of our damn business. So now you're for gov't meddling in the market? People with private insurers that cover abortion should be taxed extra?

Even though we'll never need abortions ourselves, if your employer and you choose a plan that offers abortion, your employer won't be able to deduct taxes from it if the bill passes. And republicans are so pro-small business, as you know.